Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Taking a damn city!

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default Taking a damn city!

    OK so I am now huge and powerful and I want to take a city. Aside from the previously posted nonsensical promotion restrictions and such what are the rules concerning how I can conquor and keep another player's city?


    I've reduced plenty of players cities to 0 loyalty even when I was a knight with only 1 city so I suspected I should be able to occupy it given my limit of 2. Guess what? The unwritten you cant do anything that makes sense rules got me again. After a long night of effort I could only just give up.


    In fact, the game began telling me to show mercy, stupidly. Then, troops I sent were mysteriously defeated by nothing. Finally, my hero who was at 100% loyalty switched sides and many of my troops disappeared. They disappeared he didnt get them cause I checked. He got the hero though, again, stupidly. How can I conquor a city?

    Is a player's last city freakishly immune to conquoring and how dumb is that?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Alusair cave
    Posts
    2,639

    Default

    A player's last city can't be conquered. And it sounds like your hero was captured.

    Your troops were likely not defeated by "nothing" per se, but might have failed to get past the city walls within 100 rounds (they have to deal damage to the wall equal to its durability in order to plunder/conquer the city). You can tell if this was the case if the battle lasted 100 rounds and ended with your defeat.

    If your hero was captured during a battle that was just a failed attempt of a wall breach, that's probably an unintended effect, since your army was intact and no one was there to capture your hero. You could try mentioning it in the bug reports forum unless it's already mentioned there (do make sure that really was what happened, though).

    The troop disappearance thing, I'm not so sure about. It might have to do with the hero being captured.
    It's all Rodri's fault.

  3. #3

    Default

    Well that last city rule is ridiculous of course. I actually did conquor it just teh game wouldnt let me. Nonsense!

    Start him over somewhere else but let me have the city I payed for with hours of dedication and strategy!

    Nonsense!

    And ... tysvm for your answers. At least now I sorta know.

  4. #4

    Default And another thing ...

    Seriously, that last city thing is insane.

    No wonder all these not-so-much-lunkheads are grouping 3 cities right next to each other. Hell you'd better protect your add cities if your gonna be crazy enough to make more than one. The smart player goes right for your first city and lets you keep the village, lol. More insanity.

    Now I also know why there are so many not-so-lunkhead ninjas running around with one huge city. Cause they cant be busted up! El stupido!

    This game and its developers need to get a clue and make what could be a great game a lot more reality based. This kind of utter nonesense is going to drive away serious players like me and maybe thats what they want. Still I hope to play a real strategy wargame online one of these decades if theyll stop the nonsense! Please!

  5. #5

    Default

    go pick on someone else then. Y take their last city for?

  6. #6

    Default

    You dont sound like a serious player to me, you sound like a Whiny child.

    You cannot take someones last city, because its stated you cannot, end of story, loot it, destroy defenses, then move on.

    If you attacked with a Scout "army" which im suspecting you did, yes you lose ALL of your scouts on the first round of battle... you CANNOT attack with scouts, they are for SCOUTING. (i also learned the hard way, but only lost 150 scouts)

    If you lose the battle you have a chance of losing your hero it seems... perhaps not intended, but it happens.


    so all in all...

    Stop crying, and play the game.

  7. #7

    Default

    OK, I'll chime in on this one as I attempt to obtain an additional city.

    It is a ridiculous idea to disallow the conquest of the last city.

    Why?

    Because 90% of the cities in this game are not only the 'last' city of that player, but they are also the first, and are very abandoned by those players because the game is incredibly frustrating with it crazy durations.

    Explain to me the reason to leave a person's last city in their hands? If they are really interested in the game, then allowing them to be beaten out of their city might just encourage them to spend some money when they re-up with a new city. They'll hopefully have learned how to do things differently and act on those things. Having them spend an eternity trying to rebuild a devastated city is just asinine.

    Additionally, there are virtually NO open areas to build a city from scratch.

    Let's face it, the advertising on this game is pretty good. They conceal the real game very well. People click the link, think "oh this looks like fun, I'll start a city" and within 30 minutes, they realize what's involved (as in months of effort vs a few hours enjoying a game), log off, and never come back.

    Ever played "Age of Empires"? I can play that game at it's hardest setting and get 4 hours out of it. Win or lose. 4 hours is much easier for most people to deal with, vs 4000 hours.

    9000 players, only about 500 active. Dead cities taking up space. In my particular case, I'd have to send my people about 10 hours away to find a buildable space, while I have dozens of no longer participating cities around me.

    Personally, I have the time. My computer is on, and in front of me, between 17 and 19 hours a day. It's easy to play a long duration game in the background. But I find myself unable to increase my position due to my inability to conquer the dead cities around me.

    Very frustrating. So glad I haven't paid any money yet. I sure won't at this point. I found this thread just now as I was searching the forums to find out what I was doing wrong. Nearly invested $100 last night, figured I'd wait a few more days. Now I won't bother because it's going to be impossible to increase my position in the game, no matter how much I spend, given that I'm facing alliances of 100 players.

    Sad.

    Brett Anderson
    Last edited by koalamotorsport; 08-19-2009 at 11:01 PM. Reason: edited for a typo

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Server 4
    Posts
    69

    Default

    any 'serious' player would check the statistics button to see how many cities a player has before wasting a night attacking something that can't be conquered.

    just sayin...
    You have been banned for the following reason:
    Repeated and constant insulting of members and total lack of respect for authority.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trakt View Post
    any 'serious' player would check the statistics button to see how many cities a player has before wasting a night attacking something that can't be conquered.

    just sayin...
    My point is that over 90% of the players only have one city. Because over 90% of the players bail on the game within a few hours, as is evidenced by the city stats.

    So what do the game owners do? Keep adding "states" to bring in new players? Or is there a point where an abandoned city is finally recognized as such and deleted so we can use the space?

    It's not a matter of recognizing the situation, it's a matter of an absolutely asinine situation where, from what I can see, the "state", in my case Bohemia, is clogged solid with dead cities that are of no use to anyone.

    Without a way to move forward, how do the game creators think they are going to get people to pay money?

    Brett Anderson

  10. #10

    Default

    all players with less than 1000 prestige are wiped after some amount of inactivity (between 5 and 10 days depending on the circumstances)...then your server will be covered in flats.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •